How dare Catholic bishops use their teaching authority to speak
out in favor of religious liberty! That was the thrust of University of Dayton
theology professor Vincent Miller’s November
8 post on CNN’s Belief Blog[1] (which has a tendency to
attack conservative ideas[2]) titled “Catholic Bishops’ Election Behavior
Threatens Their Authority.”

Miller complained
that: “The Catholic Church was well within its rights to conduct its campaign
on religious liberty, but its “Preserve Religious Freedom” yard signs were
clearly designed to be placed alongside partisan candidate signs.” He continued by decrying the fact that: “The
technically nonpartisan nature of the Church’s religious liberty campaign was
further drowned out by a small chorus of strident bishops who left no doubt
about how Catholics ought to vote for president.”

Miller’s argument
zeroed in on a letter
written by Bishop Daniel Jenky[3] of Peoria
(which curiously enough he did not provide a link to): The bishop, Miller
wrote, “juxtaposed the Obama administration's new contraception mandate with
the scourging and mockery of Jesus.”

Miller ignores the fact that there were more than two
candidates who ran for president – and that only one candidate had actively
sought to force Catholic employers to violate their consciences.

Miller continued
by demanding more freedom for the laity: “Bishops must allow room for and respect believers' own specific
political judgments. The Second Vatican Council taught that it is primarily the
responsibility of the laity to undertake the secular work of inscribing “the
divine law…in the life of the earthly city.” But when a candidate actively
seeks to force Catholic employers to violate what they see as divine law, the
bishops, as protectors of the Church, are bound to oppose his policy.

Apparently what really bothered Miller was that the bishops
hadn’t gone after that GOP too. “The
Catholic Church will enhance its public authority by speaking out in a way that
supports and challenges both parties,” he asserted. “Prophets are respected
when they are perceived to be an independent and fair voice. When the deep
coherence of Catholic moral teaching is communicated, it can free people from
our partisan moral straightjackets. But when parts of this teaching are passed
over in silence, the Church puts itself in a partisan straightjacket.”

The Catholic
Church does challenge both parties when they fall into error. But Miller displays
the same absurd moral equivalence that many liberal Catholics hold fast to, giving
moral equivalence to disparate issues.

The voting
guide[4] of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming
Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” punctures this claim: “In making these
decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed
conscience that recognizes that all
issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to
oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our
actions.”

The guide provides examples of issues that might disqualify
candidates from receiving support from faithful Catholics: “A candidate’s
position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support.
Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or
the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a
candidate from receiving support.”

But instead of
acknowledging this, Miller launched a predictable attack on the Ryan budget
bogeyman: “The official Church response to the candidacy of vice presidential
nominee Paul Ryan displayed this failure to forcefully challenge both parties.
In the spring, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had challenged Ryan’s
proposed federal budget for failing to put ‘the needs of those who are hungry
and homeless, without work or in poverty’ first. But the bishops were largely
silent on this issue during the campaign.”

This may be
because Paul Ryan did articulate
a vision of providing charity[5] for the disadvantaged – a vision that sought
to reduce government programs in favor of private charity. Like all liberals,
Miller seems to believe only funs compelled from citizens and distributed by
the government are the only legitimate form of charity. But concern for social
justice does not necessitate the continuous funding of government anti-poverty
programs.

Miller also left
out the fact that he was a staunch Obama supporter. In 2008, he
wrote an article[6] in the left-leaning National Catholic Reporter in which he
declared: “Obama
has consistently offered a deeply Catholic vision of government and the common
good.” In
a 2009 article[7], he complained that “Right wing warriors cause damage to the
Church.”

“The Catholic
Church can never turn its back on the moral dimension of politics. But it must
beware the divisiveness that even the appearance of partisanship can bring into
the Church. Teach and preach the fullness of the Church’s doctrines
forthrightly and forcefully, but honor the decisions of the laity. The danger
is not that the Church might inappropriately interfere with politics, but that
partisan politics will infect the Church.”

But when the Church is attacked, its bishops must respond –
no matter who is attacking it.

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.